This EU standardization white paper is a weak attempt to focus on important issues. What is an ICT standard? Is a cell phone battery standard an ICT standard? Is a computer environmental disposal standard an ICT standard? Are the standards for telephone electronic components ICT standards? In fairness I do recognize this paper discusses standards that apply to the compatibility of computer or communications systems or equipment, less confusingly termed “compatibility” standards. The confused title is only preamble. Considering that the EU does not even have a reasonable (or widely accepted) definition of a technical standard proposing goals for a “quality” standard or “open” standard is meaningless.

Read More…

I will start first by saying in what role I make this contribution, which is in a personal capacity. I handle ICT standardisation and technology issues for the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) – the ministry responsible for standardisation policy for the UK. As part of this I am a board member of ETSI and DVB. I am also a member of the Commission ICT standards steering group, and the steering group for the Commission IPR in standards study. These roles inform what I outline below, but are not statements on behalf of any of these organisations or groups.

At their best standards are an excellent tool, they enable all the commercial parties and civil society interests to meet together to create solutions that bring the best in technology and societal needs together to create solutions that enhance life for all. On the other hand they can be used by some parties to manipulate the market for their own ends. Good standards making relies on trust between all parties, if this is not present the system will not work, however many rules there are. Mutual cooperation is the name of the game between parties for a good standard. It is the aim of governments to provide a regulatory framework in which this can readily be a reality, and to make abuse of the system difficult. But note that because it must be based largely on trust we cannot make the system infallible.

The state is particularly concerned with standards that have widespread use or have regulatory links. We need to ensure that these are transparent in their creation, so that the interests of all stakeholders are met as far as they can be able. This is one of the reasons for the ESO model we have here in Europe, to provide a framework on which we rest the wide range of interests that need to be taken on board. Transparency and efficiency however can sit uneasily alongside each other however in that transparency demands accountability and this in turn means some level of bureaucracy and slowness. We should not be surprised that we have this, and neither should we be surprised that standards that are largely commercial in nature go away from the formal system into fora and consortia where they can get a more speedy conclusion to their needs. We thus see several models emerging and that is to be encouraged. We need to provide a range of models of working to cope with different needs around different products and services. The days when we could have a one size fits all model of working are history.

The regulations and procedures around standards making are a mixture of those aimed at standards environment and those for standards commercial issues. Government focus is on those issues that are directly related to more significant business needs and societal interests when as governments we work around standards. Amongst other things standards are a tool for encouraging industry to build in aspects that are helpful to the disabled and disadvantaged in society, and this features in our policy directions. It can be difficult for SMEs to gain access to the standards making process, and also to access standards to use them. This is another reason why we support the ESO model as it offers an effective way of ensuring that the vast range of standards that come through them can be accessed by SMEs. It is always though a balance between larger stakeholders who pay most of the cost, and what further can be done to improve access for SMEs.

IPR is an important issue especially for the ICT side of standards. This is a largely commercial issue that is dealt with by commercial and competition law. Standards bodies are rarely the right space to actively discuss the detail of these issues, although standards must be done alongside the IPR discussions. There is a fine line between commercial discussions and the confidentiality they need, compared to being open and fair about disclosing costs information that is needed for a standards regime to function fairly. I would not feel it right to impose on a standards body the need to run some sort of IPR negotiations, as it is likely to draw them too much into the commercial arena and take away from the focus on producing standards. It does seem thought that they could be the contact point for companies to start discussions, leading to appropriate ex ante agreements about new standards. Maybe there is space for an independent body to sit alongside standards organisations, but more likely it needs to become more the norm for ex ante discussions to at least considered in setting up a new standards committee. We need in handling IPR to accept a variety of models of working. The telecomms community for example has revenue earning IPR, where as parts of the software world use royalty free, and there are a variety of options in between these two. There are pros and cons to each of these ways of working, but to my mind they can all be used in a fair and reasonable way, so long as we have the trust I started with. So let’s trust each other and make this work.

This article is co-authored by Anne Layne-Farrar and Vanessa Yanhua Zhang (bio Here)

In the past decade, Chinese companies have aggressively invested in R&D as a path toward meaningful participation in domestic and international standard setting. These efforts are aligned with broader Chinese ambitions to transform the domestic industry structure from “made-in-China” to “innovated-in-China”. This transformation will leverage China’s influence in the global economy community via the nation’s intellectual property rights (IPR) and standardisation strategy, which is part of its overall industrial policy.

Read More…

In recent years China’s standardization system has matured considerably. Today, China has more standards than Europe, covering more aspects of economic operations than any industrialized country. China wants to be recognized as a major player in standardization, including export of its standardization deliverables. One of the growing ambitions of this country is to become a leading high-technology country, making a transformation from the “factory of the world” to an innovation-based society and from standards-follower to standards-setter for the rest of the world. This target is evident also in the 11th Five year plan for 2006-2011, where standardization is mentioned many times as a tool to leapfrog innovation, with specific emphasis put on the high-tech and ICT sectors.

Read More…

Standardisation has the potential to be an influential instrument in improving China’s economy, society and government in numerous dimensions, so long as standardisation policy is able to be effectively embedded in both other related policy areas at the national level and the international system of standardisation.

Read More…

As COP15 is rapidly approaching its climax, a number of conflicts between developed and developing countries have surfaced. These conflicts should not be surprising. First, the costs and benefits of actions taken to stop climate change vary across countries. Second, poorer nations argue that rich countries have caused the problems and should clean up their own mess. Third, individual countries have a unilateral incentive to free-ride on other countries actions.
Read More…

China recently circulated a draft regulation regarding the use of patents in Chinese national standards. The regulation demands that for patents to be eligible for incorporation in standards, they must be made irrevocably available royalty free
Read More…

We are afraid today about important economy using standards as barriers to trade or as imposing views on other parts of the world. But is that different behaviour than other large countries did in the past or still do?
Read More…

Recently, Trevor Baylis , who invented the wind-up radio, has written to the business secretary urging him to criminalise the theft of intellectual property.

I have known Trevor Bylis when we both spoke at an event in Ireland a few years ago. Trevor is an interesting character and a good speaker. He has raised the profile for IPR and patents here in the UK for many years now ..But I don’t agree with the idea of criminalising people for patent infringement. 
Read More…

It has been almost 15 years since the Dell consent decree placed firms on notice regarding their obligations to  disclose essential patents in the standard setting process. In the wake of Dell, there has been a huge surge in IPR disclosures. But it is does not seem that all of this disclosure has resolved the uncertainty surrounding IPR in standards. Since Dell, there have been controversies over: what types of IP must be disclosed, and at what stage of the standards process (Rambus); whether commitments are binding on subsequent patent owners (N-Data); and what is meant by a promise to license on Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms (Qualcomm).
Read More…